Don’t get confused by ‘assault weapon’ lingo

By Kent Sullivan

Published: Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 09:40 AM.

The fact of the matter is that most if not all of the firearms that would be banned as so-called “assault weapons” are legal for hunting and many have been commonly used in that capacity for some time. Additionally, contrary to the belief of some, many that would be banned are also long-range rifles capable of precision accuracy.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, so it should be irrelevant whether or not a particular firearm is deemed acceptable for civilian ownership based upon the subjective measure of what constitutes “sporting purposes.” Regardless, there are those groups and individuals that continue trying to justify a ban on so-called assault weapons with the erroneous claim that they are not allowed for hunting.

Therefore, before they put pen to paper, I would suggest to those people that they actually research the subject — starting with The North Carolina Inland, Fishing, Hunting and Trapping Regulations Digest, followed by some firearm technical manuals.

In the annual North Carolina Inland, Fishing, Hunting and Trapping Regulations Digest there is a section titled “Manner of Taking.”

Included in this section is information regarding those firearms, based upon their functional characteristics, which are acceptable for hunting in the state of North Carolina.

In the 12 or so other states I have hunted in over the years, they also had regulations regarding what firearms were acceptable for the taking of game. Those regulations, as with those of North Carolina, were also based upon functional characteristics, not cosmetics.

Not surprising, I have yet to find a state where the taking of game with a fully automatic firearm — of which civilian use and possession are strictly regulated in accordance with National Firearms Act of 1934 — is permissible.

Furthermore — and no surprise here, either — I have yet to find a state that prohibits the use of a firearm for hunting based upon the cosmetic features that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., identifies as defining an “assault weapon” in her proposed legislation.

The fact of the matter is that most if not all of the firearms that would be banned as so-called “assault weapons” are legal for hunting and many have been commonly used in that capacity for some time. Additionally, contrary to the belief of some, many that would be banned are also long-range rifles capable of precision accuracy.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, so it should be irrelevant whether or not a particular firearm is deemed acceptable for civilian ownership based upon the subjective measure of what constitutes “sporting purposes.” Regardless, there are those groups and individuals that continue trying to justify a ban on so-called assault weapons with the erroneous claim that they are not allowed for hunting.

Therefore, before they put pen to paper, I would suggest to those people that they actually research the subject — starting with The North Carolina Inland, Fishing, Hunting and Trapping Regulations Digest, followed by some firearm technical manuals.